| Abstract [eng] |
This Master's thesis analyzes evidentiary privileges within the framework of civil procedure. Initially, the work introduces the legal institution of evidentiary privileges itself, defines the concept of privilege, and addresses the legal qualification of this institution within the Lithuanian civil procedure's concept of evidence admissibility. It further presents differing perspectives on whether privileges constitute a form of evidence or function as rules restricting the substantive content of evidence. Subsequently, the main body of the thesis comprises an analysis of individual privileges. This analysis is conducted not only within the scope of national law but also incorporates an international context, drawing upon legislative analysis from continental law tradition jurisdictions as well as common law practice and doctrine. Lithuania has established at least a minimum level of protection for universally recognized confidential relationships and information, aligning with continental law standards. However, challenges arise due to the lack of legal certainty concerning the scope and content of these privileges, compounded by a scarcity of relevant legal doctrine and case law. In analyzing specific privileges, the thesis examines pertinent statutes and secondary legislation, identifies regulatory problems, and seeks answers to questions defining the content and boundaries of privileges. Finally, the thesis addresses the problematic nature of the conflict between the objective of establishing factual reality and the protection of confidentiality, analysing distinct aspects of this conflict, namely justice, truth (factual reality), and confidentiality. To date, there remains no universal consensus on the definition of justice. It is argued that justice is not, and cannot be, static. It must align with the prevailing societal perception of justice. In any event, the objective is to ensure that the facts established during proceedings correspond to reality. Nonetheless, the conclusion is reached that while ensuring a judgment's correspondence with factual reality is undoubtedly a desirable objective, elevating this pursuit to an absolute would restrict the sphere of operation for other significant values, such as confidentiality. Privileges, in turn, are predicated on the notion that, for the promotion of certain interests, confidentiality is deemed more important than the evidentiary value of the information withheld. In summary, the thesis concludes that the dominant perspective holds that evidentiary privileges allow for the establishment of factual truth while avoiding the infringement upon universally recognized values. |
